9 replies to this topic

[GMO]

On the SQF v 10 thread someone mentioned about how they're going back to the drawing board on GFSI.  I just saw another comment on Linkedin about how GFSI were insisting on a food science degree for auditors in this latest round of benchmarking.

 

1. Is this true?  I like many come from a science but not food science background.  
2. I assume it only means for GFSI approved 3rd party auditors but is this a slippery slope?
3. Does this mean GFSI believe that microbiologists, chemists, biologists, biochemists, biomedical scientists (etc) don't understand food science?  Did they check our degree syllabuses?!
4. Does it mean they don't value our experience?
5. Could this be (one) of the reasons they've gone back for more discussion?
6. If not, if anyone has influence, please can you nudge them about this?  Because if you think there's an auditor crisis now, just you wait...

[Scampi]

is this the linkedin post your referring to?

https://www.linkedin...d-m-naim-khalid

 

SQFI says this

https://www.sqfi.com...nical-reviewers

[GMO]

No, I've just found it, this:

 

Benchmarking_Requirements_v2024_Implementation_Handbook_Part_II.pdf

 

p22

 

 

Bioscience degree with focus on food, specified syllabus (including food waste, you find me a university bothered about that in the 1990s) and no grandfather rights.

 

So I can work as a senior technical / food safety employee but I couldn't audit the people who work / worked for me?

 

That's what GFSI are saying.

[jfrey123]

If I'm reading that right, the food science degree applies to auditors working at a CB.

 

P23 of your link has some other interesting caveats to the degree requirement:

 

Educational Qualifications

• Auditors must hold a degree in a relevant discipline or have completed a related higher education course.

• Certification Bodies must confirm and retain records of all qualifications.

 

No Grandfather Rights

All auditors, regardless of tenure, must meet current requirements. Certification Bodies should review qualifications and experience to ensure compliance.

 

Degree Relevance:

The degree subject must be appropriate for the auditor’s sector. For example, Chemistry and Veterinary Science may be acceptable for scopes A1, A2, and C0, while Veterinary Science is less suitable for C4, and Environmental Biology is generally not appropriate.

 

Justification and Equivalence:

Justifications for "relevant" higher education courses or "equivalent" qualifications must be robust and defensible, with evidence and consideration of course details including learning outcomes and duration or professional experience.

HACCP Training: HACCP or Hazard and Risk Assessment training must be separate from other qualifications (e. g., degrees) and aligned with the auditor's sector of activities.

Framework Reference: The GFSI Food Safety Auditor Professional Development Framework may be used as a reference for qualifications and training standards.

 

Then on P24, section 4.11 covers "Scope Extension of Auditor Activities" which appears to allow wiggle room for existing auditors to receive training in a new sector if their prior education isn't sufficient for a new area of activity.

 

 

BUT THEN...

 

I skimmed down to P46, 6.17 for Internal Auditors.  "Internal auditors shall meet similar or comparable requirements to those for external auditors, as set out within each Certification Programme Owner’s rules. This shall include, at a minimum, requirements related to internal auditor education, training, work experience or other qualifications. Their qualifications shall be assessed annually by the Certification Body.

 

Certification Programme Owners may require the organisation’s internal auditors to successfully complete the Certification Programme Owners specific auditor training."

 

So, if I'm reading that correctly, self-auditing one's company to SQF standard could be updated to require specific paid SQF training courses (whereas current SQF practitioners can just demonstrate proficiency), and possibly the degree in food science.

 

What a fuster cluck...

[TimG]

Oh wow, for internal auditors "Their qualifications shall be assessed annually by the Certification Body."

So, at time of audit by the auditor? Or are they going to enroll us in an annual subscription service to their qualification assessment? (sarcasm here, kind of...)

I kind of smell an attempt to generate income by 'requiring' qualifications and then offering training for said qualifications, but I might be wrong..

[SQFconsultant]

I was fortunate that SQF in the early days was more interested in experience than in degrees - and thus as both an Auditor with 28 food sector categories and as a Consultant - carrying over those 28 plus 2 more FSC's.

 

Interestingly enough I was doing superb work for an auditing company when I was an Auditor only - that ended (even though I had worked for 5 years with them) when the company realized that I "lacked" a degree - and fired me.

 

And yes, I did institute a lawsuit against them and won - so many days ago.

 

GFSI will be going thru a lot of really big changes as the world itself changes - it does not surprize me that some idiot in a backroom thought this would be a great idea - I am sure the same person has a degree in food science, etc etc.

 

When they put the screws to the Auditors during the fake pandemic telling them if they did not get the jabs they would be let go or not contracted with - many chose not to take the jabs and left.

 

This is just another stick in the balls.

[qa_maddy]

This just feels like such a detriment to smaller and older companies. 

 

I think I'm the only one at my company that has anything close to a food science degree (and it's not even technically food science)....I'm not allowed to audit my own work. 

My QA team is 3 people in total, and then I lean on operations. Fortunately we're BRCGS at the moment, but this if this ideology spreads it's really going to limit which schemes we can even look at in the future. 

[Setanta]

We had our SQF audit last month and our auditor mentioned something about HIGH RISK categories might be going to degreed auditors only, but he didn't think if would fly.

 

I am re-reading some of my notes from this audit and found this tidbit in the margins.

[Tony-C]

It seems like there has been plenty of feedback to GFSI on this matter

 

Benchmarking_Requirements_v2024_Implementation_Handbook_Part_II 4.9 (p23) states:

Framework Reference: The GFSI Food Safety Auditor Professional Development Framework may be used as a reference for qualifications and training standards

 

GFSI has already Consulted and given feedback:

An Upcoming Framework to Support Food Safety Auditor Career Advancement

Our response details how GFSI has addressed each submitted comment, reflecting our commitment to a transparent and rigorous process.

 

I have extracted a few comments from Food Safety Auditor Professional Development Framework stakeholder consultation- Stakeholder Comments and GFSI Response

 

Japan CB 2

Suggestion Degree or diploma in Food Sciences or other equivalent field OR Relevant experience in the food industry”:

We have strong confident that the auditor with experience in the food industry are more competent and knowledgeable than the auditor who studied for their degrees.

GFSI Response - Agreed

 

Japan CB 9

The Auditor's education requirements are described on page 14, ‘3. Matrix’, as follows. ‘Degree or diploma in Food Sciences

or other equivalent field OR Relevant experience in the food industry’. JIA-QA Center supports this content and requests that it is reflected in the revised 2024 benchwork requirements.

GFSI Response - Opportunity Identified

 

United States of America CPO 1

Within the educational qualifications & educational background, there should be specific educational components identified, such sampling plans and statistical justification (or educational background with mathematics in or exceeding statistics), soil leaching and environmental hazards (or education in agricultural science), microbiological contamination (or education in bioscience), chemical safety and contamination (or education in chemistry), etc. because these are more universal than a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, if a person who has several years of work experience and may not have the exact bachelor’s degree but displays a lot of technical competence this provide an avenue for that auditor to seek training/refresher training that is much more job focused vs just a college credit.

GFSI Response - Opportunity Identified

 

Germany CPO 4

If all already approved auditors who have been auditors for 10+ years need to be assessed against the new requirements of the framework and if the experience that has been accepted in the past will be questioned, it must be taken into consideration whether those auditor will still want to continue and if not this will increase the auditor scarcity we are facing at the moment.

GFSI Response - Opportunity Identified

 

United Kingdom CPO 5

A self-assessment can be very subjective - some people will consider themselves highly competent when they are not. 

GFSI Response - Opportunity Identified

 

United Kingdom CPO 5

…….. clipped…..

As a CPO, (Organisation) was not invited to contribute beyond the initial working group, which was subsequently disbanded. We would welcome the opportunity to engage throughout the entire process, especially at the beginning, to offer meaningful input. (Organisation) remains committed to supporting initiatives aimed at strengthening the food safety auditing profession and would be happy to work collaboratively to refine this framework. Thank you for your time and consideration of our feedback. We look forward to continued engagement on this important matter.

GFSI Response - Noted

 

I’m sure there are plenty more relevant comments in there.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[GMO]

 

United Kingdom CPO 5

A self-assessment can be very subjective - some people will consider themselves highly competent when they are not. 

GFSI Response - Opportunity Identified

 

 

As a Brit, I'd like to give some significant appreciation to the passive aggression in that comment.  Chapeau sir or madam!

 

 

Well what a baffling state of affairs.  British pedantry aside, the main arguments seem to be "ok, you're telling me after 15, 20, 30 years that I'm no longer competent even potentially for internal audits and some kid with a degree they got 5 minutes ago from Scumbag College* is more so?"

 

"Ok, I'll take you to tribunal and send you a postcard from the Bahamas..."

 

* For those who also liked the Young Ones